Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases
June 13 (Reuters) - Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January, his administration has bombarded the U.S. Supreme Court with emergency requests seeking immediate intervention to free up his initiatives stymied by lower courts. The strategy is paying off.
Once a rarely used pathway to the nation's top judicial body, its emergency docket now bulges with an unprecedented volume of requests for rapid attention by the justices in clashes over Trump's far-reaching executive actions.
As the Republican president tests the limits of executive power under the U.S. Constitution, Trump's administration has made 19 emergency applications to the court in less than five months, with one other such application filed by lawyers for migrants held in Texas who were on the verge of deportation.
The court already has acted in 13 of these cases. It has ruled in Trump's favor nine times, partially in his favor once, against him twice and postponed action in one case that ultimately was declared moot.
Trump's wins have given him the green light to implement contentious policies while litigation challenging their legality continues in lower courts. The court, for instance, let Trump revoke the temporary legal status granted for humanitarian reasons to hundreds of thousands of migrants, implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military and take actions to downsize the federal workforce, among other policies.
The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justice who Trump appointed during his 2017-2021 first presidential term.
Six more emergency requests by the administration remain pending at the court and one other emergency request was withdrawn. Among the requests still to be acted upon are Trump's bid to broadly enforce his order to restrict birthright citizenship, to deport migrants to countries other than their own including politically unstable South Sudan and to proceed with mass federal layoffs called "reductions in force."
Emergency applications to the court involving Trump policies have averaged about one per week since he began his second term. His administration's applications this year match the total brought during Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden's four years as president.
"The Trump administration uses every legal basis at its disposal to implement the agenda the American people voted for," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Reuters. "The Supreme Court will continue to have to step in to correct erroneous legal rulings that district court judges enter solely to block the president's policies."
The administration has "not sought Supreme Court review in all the cases it could, and part of the story may be that the government is appealing what it thinks are strong cases for it," said Sarah Konsky, director of the University of Chicago Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic.
Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who wrote a book about the court's emergency docket, said in a blog post on Thursday that the results favoring Trump should not be attributed only to the court's ideological makeup.
At a time when Trump and his allies have verbally attacked judges who have impeded aspects of his sweeping agenda, there is a "very real possibility that at least some of the justices ... are worried about how much capital they have to expend in confrontations with President Trump," Vladeck wrote.
The onslaught of emergency applications has diverted the attention of the justices as they near the end of the court's current term. June is usually their busiest month as they rush to finish writing opinions in major cases. For instance, they have yet to decide the fate of Tennessee's Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
Among the emergency-docket cases, the court most recently on June 6 allowed Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in his drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal data on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration systems and blocked a watchdog group from receiving records on DOGE operations.
The court also has allowed Trump to cut millions of dollars in teacher training grants and to fire thousands of probationary federal employees.
On the other side of the ledger, the court has expressed reservations about whether the administration is treating migrants fairly, as required under the Constitution's guarantee of due process. On May 16, it said procedures used by the administration to deport migrants from a Texas detention center under Trump's invocation of a 1798 law historically used only in wartime failed basic constitutional requirements.
The justices also declined to let the administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work already performed for the government.
Trump turned to the emergency docket during his first term as well. His prior administration filed 41 such applications to the court. During the 16 years prior, the presidential administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama filed just eight combined, according to Vladeck.
The court has quickly decided weighty matters using the emergency docket in a way often at odds with its traditional practice of considering full case records from lower courts, receiving at least two rounds of written briefings and then holding oral arguments before rendering a detailed written ruling.
It is sometimes called the "shadow docket" because cases often are acted upon without the usual level of transparency or consideration.
Some recent decisions on the emergency docket have come with brief opinions explaining the court's reasoning. But typically they are issued as bare and unsigned orders offering no rationale.
Konsky noted that the justices sometimes designate emergency cases for regular review with arguments and full briefing.
"But in any event, the emergency docket raises complicated questions that are likely to continue to play out in the coming years," Konsky said.
Among Trump's emergency applications this year, oral arguments were held only in the birthright citizenship dispute.
The liberal justices, often findings themselves on the losing side, have expressed dismay.
Once again "this court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent in the Social Security data case.
"The risk of error increases when this court decides cases -as here - with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the teacher grants case.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito defended the emergency docket in 2021, saying there is "nothing new or shadowy" about the process and that it has wrongly been portrayed as sinister.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
New Texas law will require Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom
Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law that will make the state the nation's largest to attempt to impose such a mandate. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, is expected to draw a legal challenge from critics who consider it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. A similar law in Louisiana was blocked when a federal appeals court ruled Friday that it was unconstitutional. Arkansas also has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. The Texas measure easily passed in the Republican-controlled state House and Senate in the legislative session that ended June 2. 'The focus of this bill is to look at what is historically important to our nation educationally and judicially,' Republican state representative Candy Noble, a co-sponsor of the bill, said when it passed the House. The Ten Commandments laws are among efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Texas lawmakers also passed a bill that lets school districts provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours. Texas' law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch (41-by-51-centimeter) poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship. Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States' judicial and educational systems and should be displayed. Opponents, including some Christian and other faith leaders, say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures infringe on others' religious freedom. A letter signed this year by dozens of Christian and Jewish faith leaders opposing the bill noted that Texas has thousands of students of other faiths who might have no connection to the Ten Commandments. Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools. In 2005, Abbott, who was state attorney general at the time, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Texas could keep a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of its Capitol. Louisiana's law has twice been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, first by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles and then again by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also considers cases from Texas. State Attorney General Liz Murrell said she would appeal and pledged to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
How Israel could go it alone without US bunker buster bombs
The United States appears to have sent two B-2 stealth bombers to a military base in the Indian Ocean. The decision to send the warplanes, shortly after sending the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier to the region, could be a last minute negotiating tactic or a prelude to war. The bombers, which were probably making their way to Guam or the Diego Garcia military base, are equipped with the capability to use 'bunker buster' bombs which could offer the best chance of taking out Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. However, President Trump is still uncommitted for the time being to offensive action and is talking up diplomacy. If the president is unwilling to use his assets in the region to attack Iran, the question arises of how far the Israelis might be able to go on their own. Several targets, including the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the most important uranium enrichment plant, Natanz, have already been struck. The boss of the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that the centrifuges there were stopped so abruptly by airstrikes that they have been 'severely damaged if not destroyed altogether'. But other key sites are believed to remain intact, including the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre and the uranium enrichment plant deep underground at Fordow. The first of these (also a subterranean facility) is thought to have been the storage site for the 400-plus kilograms of uranium already enriched close to weapons grade. The second site is home to the most secure processing facilities available to the Islamic Republic. So, what are the other options? Expert opinion seems divided. Yoav Gallant, Israel's defence minister until last year, in an article in the Free Press co-authored with Sir Niall Ferguson, argued, 'only one air force has the power to finish off Fordow … only America can do this'. Gallant, however, like many on the Israeli side, wants to draw the Americans in, and US attacks on this and other deeply buried facilities might turn out to be more a question of delaying for longer than completely eliminating Iran's nuclear programme. Even if America does join in the assault, Fordow's centrifuges, shielded by 80-90 metres of rock, may prove invulnerable to its 'bunker buster' — the massive ordnance penetrator or GBU-57 bomb which is rated as effective down to 60m. Speaking on an Israeli podcast, Zohar Palti, Mossad's former analytical chief, said of Fordow: 'It would be better if the Americans strike there. They truly have the capacity to make the place 'evaporate', and I chose that word deliberately.' The phrasing was chilling, hinting that a tactical or low-yield nuclear weapon might be the only way to ensure its destruction. The idea of a nuclear weapon being used, something the White House would not rule out this week, seems like an extraordinary escalation but might be threatened at this stage as another attempt to intimidate Iran into making concessions. It's fascinating also that the Mossad veteran implied that a deep penetration unconventional weapon was a capability the US has, but not Israel. If President Trump's desire to avoid another Middle Eastern war means he sits this one out, it's possible the Israelis may have secretly produced a better penetrator weapon than its publicly acknowledged inventory suggests. There's also been some speculation — shades of blowing up the Death Star — that Fordow has an Achilles heel, a ventilation shaft that could provide a pathway for a bomb. But so far Israel has not attempted an assault on Fordow. David Albright, an American academic who's spent many years looking at Iranian nuclear sites, is one of those who's more upbeat about the chances of putting it out of action, saying 'Israel doesn't need the United States to come in with bunker busters and destroy it … Israel can do it on its own'. He argues that destroying generators, ventilation systems and so on at Fordow's other support plant could wreck the centrifuges inside in the same way that Natanz's were. It's noteworthy also that this week Israel bombed the factory where new enrichment machines are made. If all else fails, it's likely that the Israelis also have a plan to attack Fordow using ground forces. Their main airborne formation, the 98th Paratroopers Division, was withdrawn from Gaza earlier this month to be ready for action elsewhere. Israeli C-130 transport planes have also been seen over Syria, apparently on missions to or from Iran. There could be many reasons for those flights, for example to set up refuelling points for Israeli aircraft or ferry their forward air controllers to or from operations. But the suppression of Iran's air defences has been so extensive that it may soon be viable to mount the type of airlift needed to insert a force of several thousand troops to a forward mounting base near Fordow. It could be that a desire to retain the option of such a mission lies behind the fact that the tunnel entrances of the complex have not yet been attacked. They might need to be used by an assault force after all. This type of operation, though, would be fraught with difficulty — indeed in the view of Gallant and Ferguson it's 'not realistic'. There are thousands of Iranian troops deployed around the plant, so casualties could be high. Although the quantity of explosive needed to destroy it from the inside out might be a lot less than bombing it, it would remain considerable. While the Israelis are likely to have developed numerous plans, Iran may still hold some wild cards. 'All enriched materials have been transferred and are in secure locations,' Major General Mohsen Rezaie of the Revolutionary Guard Corps said earlier this week. He added: 'We will come out of this war with our hands full.' Many believe Iran has indeed dispersed its stockpile of highly enriched uranium from Isfahan to other sites too. A third uranium enrichment site at a secret location is believed to have been under preparation when the conflict started. What all the 'kinetic' options require — from GBU-57 bombs to ground forces — is an continuing onsite inspection regime to ensure that in the months or years to come Iran's nuclear project is not reconstituted. That might be necessary even in the 'regime change' scenario: note that international organisations are currently trying to secure the remnants of Syria's chemical arsenal. At talks with the UK, France, and Germany in Geneva on Friday, Iran showed both its willingness to engage on these issues but also its refusal to give up uranium enrichment. That's a longstanding position which is, so far, unchanged by the war. This refusal to bend may be sufficient for President Trump, mindful of the political divisions within his Maga movement, to say that a deal is impossible, despite his recent attempts to pressure Iran into one. His line last week — saying 'I may or may not' attack — may also simply have been stalling for time while final military deployments went ahead. Evidently Pentagon planners have wanted to head off various contingencies if, for example, Iran were to retaliate against their bases or diplomatic facilities in the region. But with the arrival of two stealth bombers, alongside two aircraft carriers and soon a number of F-22 stealth fighters and tanker planes, Trump will be able to deliver a final ultimatum to Iran. When that happens, the question of whether Israel can take out Fordow and other key facilities on its own may become academic.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Greenlanders celebrate national holiday under 24 hours of sunlight
Greenlanders celebrated their National Day on Saturday, marking the summer solstice with festivities under 24 hours of sunlight. The celebrations included traditional activities such as marches with national flags, songs, dances, and a cannon salute. A key event was the annual seal hunting competition, with the catch distributed to nursing homes and other parts used for clothing. The national Holiday, declared in 1985 following a 1979 home rule referendum, is a day of unity and cultural preservation for the island's 56,000 inhabitants. Despite past political interest from Donald Trump regarding the island, locals focused on enjoying the festivities and community spirit.
